Date   

Re: Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

Raymond Young
 

Kurt,

I'd like to obtain your spreadsheet on M4 production. I trained on the M4A3E8 in 1949,'50 &'51 at ROTC summer camp and in the 2nd Armored as 2nd Lt.

Virgil Young
Amarillo, TX

----- Original Message ----
From: Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 7:16:41 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

I would say that segregation would be more likely than not. Tanks coming
from a factory would generally be of one type, except for the early war
period when several types were produced at the same plant. Tanks coming
from a depot to a POE would also likely be segregated because they would be
shipped to equip either a unit going overseas (which would have one type of
tank) or to supply foreign aid (which also generally went in blocks of a
single type). The whole issue of Sherman production is rather complex and
boring to most, but I've got a spreadsheet showing monthly medium tank (M3
and M4 series) if anyone is interested. If'n it were me, I'd stick with one
type of tank per train, but remembering that the Army considered the M4 and
M4A1 to be interchangeable/ identical, despite them being probably the most
visually distinct types of the lot!

BLOT was part of the shipping code used to direct shipments during the War.
The first group was the destination, represented by a security code word
like BLOT, IRON, CACTUS, NAIL, etc. Other groups in the code indicated the
type of equipment, shipping date, and a sequence number. One or two of the
captions on the site I linked to earlier include the full code, albeit with
spaces and dashes in the wrong places. Of note historically are the "Task
Force A" photos, which I believe are the tanks that landed in North Africa
after transit directly from the USA. (As a sidebar, the captions in the
HRPOE collection are interesting because they gave both the security code
and the physical destination - something that was specifically forbidden in
the shipping instructions! )

Anyhoo, tanks are my thing, so you'd best not get me started . . .

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.


Re: CCB photo

Pieter Roos
 

I'm not sure how much effect this had on transport of the tanks within
the U.S. but by mid 1944 the army had standardized on the M4A3 75mm
tank for the primary gun tank and used the continuing production of
M4A1 hulls for the new 76mm gun tanks. These were assigned one or two
to a tank platoon in Europe, resulting in the very mixing of parts the
original standardization sought to avoid.

By late 1944 most tanks being sent to Europe would probably have been
replacement vehicles - in "Death Traps: The Survival of an American
Armored Division in World War II" by Belton Y. Cooper the author
indicates the U.S. 3rd armored division suffered almost 600% losses of
vehicles from landing until VE day, so large numbers of tanks were
required to replace those destroyed in combat. Unfortunately, I'm
unaware of any HO version of the 76mm gun M4 EVER being produced.

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:


On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:16 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:
BTW, M4A3 and M4A1 were almost never found together due to the fact
that the
M4A3 were segregated in certain units of the US Army. Units (tank
battalions) were generally only provided parts and tools for one
type of
engine. M4 and M4A1 were mixed in units sometimes, as they had the
same
Continental engines, but the M4A3 had a Ford GAA, and all different
parts.
Since they were shipped from different plants, it would also be
unlikely
you'd see M4A1 and M4A3 on the same flat.
Elden,

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.

One could speculate about the mix of what RRs flats got used most,
but with
wartime demands, one could also speculate that they could end up on
anything
that was available, as long as it wasn't too overloaded. Each M4 was
somewhat over 30 tons, if I remember right. I don't know if two of
them
would buckle a 50-ton flat.
With a shipping weight of 28-30 tons depending on the spares tied to
the rear deck, two Shermans comes very close to or exceeded the load
limit of most 50 ton flats and as I noted previosuly, there is also
an issue of weight distribution which would reduce the load limit of
the flat even more. It may be that cars were loaded with 2 Shermans
if the load limit was ~120,000 lbs or more, and only one was loaded
for cars with lower load limits.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Thanks. The link was resent today. I went through my WW2 plant and debarcation images and capacities are hard to find. I had two M3s on a 40-ft flat. I've two 18-20 ton anti-tank Hellcats on a string of PM flats coming out of Grand Blanc. I've M4 tractors at Newport News. But you can't find capacities. The C&O bought mostly 50 and 125-ton flat during WW2. Then jumped into 70-ton flats near the end. it appears that flats from every RR showed up at NN.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "rockroll50401" <cepropst@...>
Also, what is CCB?

Al Kresse
Al, CCB is my slang for the Prototype Modelers Meet at "CoCoa Beach"

The photos are posted in a Yahoo group Mike Brock gave the link to a
week or two ago.
Clark Propst


Re: CCB photo

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

"Al, CCB is my slang for the Prototype Modelers Meet at 'CoCoa Beach.'"

Wow, Clark was I off base. I saw M4 tanks and CCB and reverted to thinking like a turrethead!

So long,

Andy


Re: CCB photo

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Also, what is CCB?

Al Kresse
Al, CCB is my slang for the Prototype Modelers Meet at "CoCoa Beach"

The photos are posted in a Yahoo group Mike Brock gave the link to a
week or two ago.
Clark Propst


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Tom Madden <tgmadden@...>
 

Dave Nelson wrote:
But what's curious about this is I have all
e-mails from STMFC since last November on hand,
and all my personal Inbox e-mails since early
January and so either my ISP suppressed the-email
from both Ed and the from STMFC OR both got caught
in my own SPAM rules, which delete anything with the
words "misconfigured" or "does not conform" in the
header area.
As Frank Greene pointed out, it was STMFC message 71426,
subject "Railway Prototype Cyclopedia Vol. 17", posted by Ed on March
26.

Tom Madden


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Dave Nelson
 

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
Yup. Deadline for the discounted price was the 12th (says he who
just barely made it).

SGL

-----Original Message-----
The discount is no big deal actually as I can pick it up at my local hobby
shop for less than list price. But what's curious about this is I have all
e-mails from STMFC since last November on hand, and all my personal Inbox
e-mails since early January and so either my ISP suppressed the-email from
both Ed and the from STMFC OR both got caught in my own SPAM rules, which
delete anything with the words "misconfigured" or "does not conform" in the
header area.

Weird.

Dave Nelson


Re: NMRA photo collection

gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "ed_mines" <ed_mines@...> wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "gn3397" <heninger@> wrote:
I thought the Charles collection was
about 500-600 photos, so I actually have about 35-40% of the
collection.
Is this collection from one photographer or does it contain all the
freight car photos the NMRA offers?
The NMRA collection contains freight car photographs from many eras and
photographers, the Charles collection is but a subset of those
pictures. I was mostly interested in those photos because they were
taken during the time I intend to model.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Re: Modeling Iron Ore Pellets

prr6380
 

There was a swell color close up photo of these pellets filling most
of the page in a recent Trains Magazine.

Walt Stafa

--- In STMFC@..., "dssa1051" <dssa1051@...> wrote:

I'd like to expand on Elden's excellent description of iron ore
pelleting from many years of visiting the Lake Superior &
Ishpeming
RR. The very fresh pellets look like blueberries in both size
(about
3/8") and color (the county adjoining mine here in Michigan is the
Blueberry Capital of the World) and they weather to a more rusty
color. There are differences in the amount of flux used in the
pellets so each boatload is somewhat of a "custom mix" since
occasionally pellets of a different specification are used to top
off
a load.

The problem in modeling pellets is their spherical nature. They
just
don't look like our usual scenic materials. A load of pellets
viewed
from above at "HO distance" looks like a piece of #400 wet-dry
sandpaper smoothly stretched over the car. There are very small
glass beads (100 mesh) used in gas chromatography work that might
be
useful in making masters for car loads but it would be very
expensive.

For those of us modeling the steam era the saving grace is that
pelleting began about 1956 but raw ore continued into the 1960's.

Remember taconite ONLY comes from Minnesota whereas Michigan
produces
a very large tonnage of pelletized ore but it is not taconite.

Robert Oom


Re: NMRA photo collection

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@..., "gn3397" <heninger@...> wrote:
I thought the Charles collection was
about 500-600 photos, so I actually have about 35-40% of the
collection.
Is this collection from one photographer or does it contain all the
freight car photos the NMRA offers?

A couple of years ago I bought some expensive freight car prints from
the NMRA; considering the subject matter it was worth it.

Ed


Re: ATSF BX-37 question

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 16, 2008, at 6:41 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:

Can anyone direct me to a source/reference that shows how the
transverse-mounted reservoir and other brake eqpt was mounted (esp
where) on
the ATSF BX-37?




Elden, I'll send you some scans off-list.


Richard Hendrickson


Modeling Iron Ore Pellets

dssa1051
 

I'd like to expand on Elden's excellent description of iron ore
pelleting from many years of visiting the Lake Superior & Ishpeming
RR. The very fresh pellets look like blueberries in both size (about
3/8") and color (the county adjoining mine here in Michigan is the
Blueberry Capital of the World) and they weather to a more rusty
color. There are differences in the amount of flux used in the
pellets so each boatload is somewhat of a "custom mix" since
occasionally pellets of a different specification are used to top off
a load.

The problem in modeling pellets is their spherical nature. They just
don't look like our usual scenic materials. A load of pellets viewed
from above at "HO distance" looks like a piece of #400 wet-dry
sandpaper smoothly stretched over the car. There are very small
glass beads (100 mesh) used in gas chromatography work that might be
useful in making masters for car loads but it would be very expensive.

For those of us modeling the steam era the saving grace is that
pelleting began about 1956 but raw ore continued into the 1960's.

Remember taconite ONLY comes from Minnesota whereas Michigan produces
a very large tonnage of pelletized ore but it is not taconite.

Robert Oom


Re: ATSF BX-37 question

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Folks;



Can anyone direct me to a source/reference that shows how the
transverse-mounted reservoir and other brake eqpt was mounted (esp where) on
the ATSF BX-37?



Thanks!



Elden Gatwood


Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

David North <davenorth@...>
 

I don't have good photos of these classes either, but it's clear from the
diagrams in the Santa Fe Freight Car Folio that they were
essentially the same as the other postwar Santa Fe three bay hoppers.
Richard Hendrickson



Richard and Ed,

The only pic I have of the earlier classes is a rather dark one of a GA-43
from one of the Cyclopedias, IIRC.



I have a photo of a GA-81 #184134, but it has had the side plated between
the bolsters, and they plated over the short ribs at the top.

The photos I have of GA-86 #78910 and GA-100 #79600 show the very slight
fishbelly sill you mentioned, Ed. I hadn't noticed this before you pointed
it out.

I think these are photocopies from RMJ articles?



The photo of GA-121 #78331? Which is plated also has the very slight
fishbelly. This lot of 150 cars came from Greenville in 1960.

http://gelwood.railfan.net/atsf/atsf78321ags.jpg



From what I can see the top rib placement appears to be similar on the
photos I have, which is at odds with Fred's thoughts, if we are talking
about the spacing between the ribs.



Does anyone know what service these open hoppers cars were in?

I know that the GA-141s (GA-100s with trough hatch roofs installed) were
used in Duvall Potash Service, but these mods took place in 1964, beyond the
era covered by this list.



Cheers

Dave


NYC-RWO{1948}

joel norman <mec-bml@...>
 

I hope this isnt to off subject( and if so please direct to a NYC fan
you may know)Im looking for a history of the Rome-Watertown &
Ogdensburg RR which became part of the NYC,my focus interest in the RWO
is the RWO line to Cape Vincent that started at Watertown NY....hope
you can help...off line please if this is off subject....
Joel Norman


Re: Re. RPCyc volume 17

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Yup. Deadline for the discounted price was the 12th (says he who just barely made it).

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Dave Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:27 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re. RPCyc volume 17

Was there an announcement for RPC-17?

Dave Nelson




Re: Santa Fe Accurail kits

Richard Hendrickson
 

I defer to Ed Hakins' superior knowledge both of the Accurail
triple hopper and the prototypes which it represents, whether
accurately or inaccurately. He concludes:

I have not yet found prototype photos of classes Ga-66 and Ga-77 to
verify the side and arrangement used on these cars (series
183000-183224 and 183425-183924).







I don't have good photos of these classes either, but it's clear from
the diagrams in the Santa Fe Freight Car Folio that they were
essentially the same as the other postwar Santa Fe three bay hoppers.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: CCB photo

water.kresse@...
 

Bruce, they look great. The C&OHS has two images of the M4 artillery tractors on flats on the NN-Hampton ferry. Al

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Bruce Smith <smithbf@...>

On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:37 PM, water.kresse@... wrote:
Folks,

Where is this CCB photo of a flat car with two Sherman tanks on it
posted? Also, what is CCB? I've heard of CBC's (Car Builders
Cyclopedias).

Al Kresse
Al,

I have no idea what "CCB" is, but since the original question from
Clark was talking about my model, I can just give you a link to my
photos <G>.

Two Heiser M4A3s on a Bowser F30A
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/
F30ABowserSherman.jpg

In addition, the M4 18 ton artillery tractors can be seen on the
NorthernSpecific resin NP flat at:
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/M4-tractors1.jpg
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/Models/M4-tractors2.jpg
And of course, 2 of them are fine on a 50 ton flat <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Tank production and shipping; BLOT, NAIL, CACTUS, IRON, and the like [was CCB photos]

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

I would say that segregation would be more likely than not. Tanks coming from a factory would generally be of one type, except for the early war period when several types were produced at the same plant. Tanks coming from a depot to a POE would also likely be segregated because they would be shipped to equip either a unit going overseas (which would have one type of tank) or to supply foreign aid (which also generally went in blocks of a single type). The whole issue of Sherman production is rather complex and boring to most, but I've got a spreadsheet showing monthly medium tank (M3 and M4 series) if anyone is interested. If'n it were me, I'd stick with one type of tank per train, but remembering that the Army considered the M4 and M4A1 to be interchangeable/identical, despite them being probably the most visually distinct types of the lot!

BLOT was part of the shipping code used to direct shipments during the War. The first group was the destination, represented by a security code word like BLOT, IRON, CACTUS, NAIL, etc. Other groups in the code indicated the type of equipment, shipping date, and a sequence number. One or two of the captions on the site I linked to earlier include the full code, albeit with spaces and dashes in the wrong places. Of note historically are the "Task Force A" photos, which I believe are the tanks that landed in North Africa after transit directly from the USA. (As a sidebar, the captions in the HRPOE collection are interesting because they gave both the security code and the physical destination - something that was specifically forbidden in the shipping instructions!)

Anyhoo, tanks are my thing, so you'd best not get me started . . .

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

Thanks! I would differ on this point. I think that saying an M4A1
and M4A3 loaded together would be unlikely might be too strong, and
the reason used to support the statement is not exactly correct. The
important thing to realize is that domestic shipping of M4 tanks was
NOT to units, but to depots. There was a huge backlog of tanks at
arsenals mid war, waiting for flats. Thus, for example, it is my
understanding that Detroit Tank Arsenal had something like 6
different M4 models on site at one time! In clearing that backlog,
a variety of tanks would have been loaded for depots around the
country. Depots as well would have had mixed M4 models. When tanks
were shipped from depots to embarkation depots and ports, it would
still be possible for dissimilar tanks to be co-shipped because
distribution to units occurred overseas, although it is certainly
more likely to see more segregation. Note that the Signal Corps
Archive photos appear to show segregation of types, but these tanks
are being loaded for the invasion of North Africa, and there would
not be an opportunity to further sort them upon arrival. By my 1944
date, these tanks are being sent to depots in England.


Re: CCB photo

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:26 PM, CYRIL DURRENBERGER wrote:

Thanks,

Also an ex amour officer in the late1960's.




Wow, Cyril, they had officers for that? When I was in the U. S. Navy
in the early 1950s we didn't need no stinkin' help from the officers.

Richard Hendrickson

123761 - 123780 of 195354